Naveen Mongia ,Proprietor Of Maa Jagdambe Tent vs. Dda And Anr

Held

The Court held that it was not possible to accede to the petitioner's prayers to quash the rejection letter dated 19.05.2022 or to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner's e-auction bid as valid for the period 01.06.2022 to 15.09.2022. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's apparent outstanding license fee arrears, as indicated by the demand notice dated 18.05.2022, which contradicted the petitioner's assertion of no previous outstandings. Furthermore, the Court found merit in the respondents' apprehension that the petitioner's continued occupation had distorted the tender process, especially given that only a close relative of the petitioner participated in the subsequent tender. Regarding the claim for damages and the levy of damage charges, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had already granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate these matters in appropriate legal proceedings. Both parties were permitted to initiate civil proceedings for monetary reliefs. The Court also noted the existence of an arbitration clause in the bid/contract. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Naveen Mongia, proprietor of Maa Jagdambe Tent, was the highest bidder for a function site from December 5, 2020, to August 31, 2021, extended to November 30, 2021. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the petitioner could not fully utilize the site. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) issued a fresh e-auction notice. The petitioner's request for extension was rejected, leading to litigation. The Supreme Court, on March 11, 2022, allowed the petitioner to vacate by May 15, 2022, on payment of license fee, without prejudice to claims for damages. The petitioner withdrew the earlier writ petition. Subsequently, the DDA rejected the petitioner's bid for a new auction period (June 1, 2022, to September 15, 2022) via a letter dated May 19, 2022, citing outstanding dues and distorted bidding. The petitioner challenged this rejection and demanded the contract be awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's e-auction bid for the period of 01.06.2022 to 15.09.2022 should be treated as valid and the contract awarded, despite alleged outstanding dues and a distorted tender process (turning on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's order dated 11.03.2022 and the terms of the bid/contract). 2. Whether the demand for damages amounting to Rs. 1,04,94,505.63/- is legally sustainable. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that their bid should be considered valid and the contract awarded, asserting no outstanding dues. They sought to quash the rejection letter dated 19.05.2022 and the demand for damages, claiming the rejection was for irrelevant and non-existent causes, violating their fundamental rights. They relied on the Supreme Court's order which reserved their right to claim damages or resist levy of damage charges. Respondents' contentions: The DDA contended that the petitioner had outstanding license fee arrears, as evidenced by a demand notice dated 18.05.2022. They asserted that the petitioner's undertaking regarding cleared dues at the time of bidding in April 2022 was false. The DDA also argued that the petitioner's continued occupation distorted the tender process, as only the petitioner's brother participated in the March 2022 tender. They claimed liability for damage charges for the period December 1, 2021, to May 15, 2022, calculated as double the monthly license fee.